DOCSLIB.ORG

Pagina 1 Van 3 Meetings That Changed the World: Santa Fe 1986: Human

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pagina 1 Van 3 Meetings That Changed the World: Santa Fe 1986: Human Meetings that changed the world: Santa Fe 1986: Human genome baby-steps : Arti... pagina 1 van 3 Essay Nature 455, 876-877 (16 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/455876a; Published online 15 October 2008 Meetings that changed the world: Santa Fe 1986: Human genome baby-steps Charles DeLisi1 1. Charles DeLisi is Metcalf professor of science and engineering at Boston University. Email: [email protected] The 1980s saw plenty of discussion on sequencing the human genome. But, according to Charles DeLisi, one conference was crucial for converting an idea to reality. D. PARKINS It was summertime. I had left my job as a senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to take up a new role as head of health and environmental research programmes at the Department of Energy (DoE). This was not an obvious platform from which to launch an effort to sequence the human genome. In fact, organizing such a project was far from my mind. I did, however, feel strongly that we needed a deeper understanding of the impact of human activities, especially energy strategies, on the global environment. Central to our mission at the DoE was to understand the effect on human health and the environment from energy by-products, such as fuel emissions. I was especially interested in how modern genetics could be brought to bear on these issues. During my decade at the NIH we would occasionally discuss the nature of resistance and susceptibility to disease among humans. At the DoE, the same thought seemed to be emerging in an entirely different context — how can we genetically characterize variations in the susceptibility of individuals to low levels of energy by-products? In October 1985, two months after I arrived at the DoE, David Smith, a senior member of the health and environmental research staff, handed me a copy of a report. It was called Technologies for Detecting Heritable Mutations in Human Beings and had been written by the now defunct Office of Technology Assessment, whose function was to provide science advice to members of the US Congress. Not surprisingly, the report had been informed by an earlier meeting on this very topic. That meeting had been organized by DoE staff — David Smith himself and Mortimer Mendelsohn, then head of health and environmental research programmes at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. It was clear from this report that real progress towards meeting DoE goals would require bolstering our genetic programmes, and the report hinted at how this might be done. The idea was to sequence the human genome. It was known at the time that, on average, the genetic difference between two individuals was approximately one base per thousand. So if we were able to sequence one genome, this could act as a reference point for information on genetic differences. I immediately called Mendelsohn, who headed our advisory board at the DoE, and asked him what he thought. He told me about another meeting organized five months earlier by Robert Sinsheimer at the University of California in Santa Cruz. Sinsheimer, a former biologist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and chancellor of the University of California, wanted to explore the feasibility of sequencing the human genome. I also found out that there had been an earlier conference of scientists in Alta, Utah, to discuss emerging sequencing technologies — although this meeting made no proposal to sequence a full genome. I then discovered that there was strong interest from leaders in the field, such as Leroy Hood, Walter Gilbert and Charles Cantor, but that the path from idea to implementation was far from clear. Crucially, a human genome project would need substantial funding. Yet the major funding agencies appeared uninterested, and the idea languished. Politics and money Smith and I were eager to sample a broader cross-section of the community, and I asked physician Mark Bitensky, head of life sciences at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, to organize a workshop for leading lights in molecular genetics and allied fields, including the computational sciences. The brief was to assess the costs, value and feasibility of a human genome project, as well as the time needed to complete it. Bitensky was an obvious choice as he had a strong interest in the issues surrounding genetic variation from the point of view of personalized medicine. The delegates, who gathered in Santa Fe on 3–4 March 1986, included many who had been involved in the earlier Office of Technology Assessment report, as well as several who had attended the Alta summit the previous year. Other prominent geneticists were also present, as http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7215/full/455876a.html 12-1-2009 Meetings that changed the world: Santa Fe 1986: Human genome baby-steps : Arti... pagina 2 van 3 were representatives from industry. Not all were familiar with the history of the idea of sequencing the human genome and, as had been the case at previous meetings, not everyone was comfortable with it. Early on, discussions about costs, organizational architecture and technical obstacles were extremely spirited. There was widespread disagreement over whether it made sense to sequence a genome, more than 80% of which we already knew was non-coding. There was also great concern over the ability to achieve sufficiently low error rates at reasonable cost, and over the US$3- billion price tag. Not to mention the boring and repetitive nature of the project. There was, however, unanimity about the project's potential value to science (gene regulation, developmental biology, evolution) and to medical applications such as genetic disease and cancer. Interestingly, there is no record of discussion on what is perhaps the greatest beneficiary of the sequencing revolution — infectious disease. The meeting reached a broad consensus on almost all issues. And although no definitive recommendation was made on how the project would be organized, delegates unanimously recommended forming a steering committee that would help shape a management plan. The Santa Fe meeting was a success with scientists and also helped to open doors to prospective funding sources in government. Invitations had been sent out to heads of federal agencies asking them to send representatives to the meeting. Only one response came back, and that was an expression of regret. But after the conference, things began to change. The idea of a full genome sequence was now on the national scientific stage, which enabled us to begin the critical task of garnering support from the DoE, the Reagan administration and Congress. In late April, based on letters I received from participants of the Santa Fe workshop, and on a report prepared by Bitensky, I wrote a memo to Alvin Trivelpiece, the assistant secretary at the DoE to whom I reported. In this I outlined a project that would be divided into three phases: technology development, mapping and sequencing. I also formed a genome advisory committee that included Francis Collins, who went on to head the US Human Genome Project. Enter the NIH With Trivelpiece on board, we began to alert Congress and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discussions in the scientific community, including the DoE's plans for genome sequencing. The OMB was surprisingly supportive, considering the huge cost and its reputation as a fierce budget-cutting organization. Officials were impressed, both with the unanimity of the Santa Fe workshop on an idea that was unusually ambitious and potentially paradigm altering, and with the fact that this would not be an open-ended science project. It was deliberately pitched in a way that said: this is an engineering/infrastructure-type activity. It has an end-point and well-defined milestones. I also developed a rapport with the Republican senator from New Mexico, Pete Domenici. Domenici, being from a state that housed two major national laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos, was accustomed to dealing with abstruse physics projects, and was pleased to have before him a project whose relevance could easily be explained to his constituency. As a member of the Senate's budget committee and a ranking member of the powerful appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development, we needed Domenici to obtain the support of Congress and Administration to move the project forwards. With support from the Secretary of Energy and the OMB, a $13-million line item initiating the genome project appeared in President Reagan's budget submission to Congress in January 1987. It subsequently Discussions about passed both Houses, and 1988 saw the first official expenditures on the Human Genome Project. costs and technical obstacles were As the DoE moved forwards during 1986, word of an unprecedented initiative was spreading. At a June 1986 extremely spirited. Cold Spring Harbor meeting on the 'Molecular biology of Homo sapiens', sequencing the human genome became the topic for an impromptu discussion. Unlike at Santa Fe, Cold Spring Harbor heard more voices urging caution. Several participants believed that the project would lead to masses of unevaluated data, or that the computational methods available to us at the time would yield relatively little information. This was part of a more general concern that the technology of the day was not appropriate for the complexity of the task. Other researchers feared that the project would be subject to political interference, as was sometimes seen with NASA, and regarded the DoE as the wrong agency to manage it. For its part, the NIH was concerned legitimately that a large project, spread out over more than a decade, would shift substantial sums of money away from worthwhile investigator-initiated proposals. Nevertheless, James Watson was among those who felt that NIH involvement was crucial.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mapping Our Genes—Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast?
    Mapping Our Genes—Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast? April 1988 NTIS order #PB88-212402 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Mapping Our Genes-The Genmne Projects.’ How Big, How Fast? OTA-BA-373 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1988). Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-619898 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325 (order form can be found in the back of this report) Foreword For the past 2 years, scientific and technical journals in biology and medicine have extensively covered a debate about whether and how to determine the function and order of human genes on human chromosomes and when to determine the sequence of molecular building blocks that comprise DNA in those chromosomes. In 1987, these issues rose to become part of the public agenda. The debate involves science, technol- ogy, and politics. Congress is responsible for ‘(writing the rules” of what various Federal agencies do and for funding their work. This report surveys the points made so far in the debate, focusing on those that most directly influence the policy options facing the U.S. Congress, The House Committee on Energy and Commerce requested that OTA undertake the project. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the Senate Com- mittee on Labor and Human Resources, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natu- ral Resources also asked OTA to address specific points of concern to them. Congres- sional interest focused on several issues: ● how to assess the rationales for conducting human genome projects, ● how to fund human genome projects (at what level and through which mech- anisms), ● how to coordinate the scientific and technical programs of the several Federal agencies and private interests already supporting various genome projects, and ● how to strike a balance regarding the impact of genome projects on international scientific cooperation and international economic competition in biotechnology.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 1982 Submission Provided
    DRAFT DOE/FE-0033 Previous No. DOE/ER-0102 ENERGY MATERIALS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (EMACC) Fiscal Year 1982 March 1983 ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 DRAFT DOE/FE-0033 Previous No. DOE/ER-0102 ENERGY MATERIALS COORDINATING COMMITTEE (EMACC) Fiscal Year 1982 March 1983 ANNUAL TECHNICAL REPORT U.S. Department of Energy TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 Fiscal Year 1982 Activities ....................................... 2 Materials Funding Trends in the Department of Energy .............. 6 PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS ................................................ 11 - Office of Conservation and Renewable Systems .................... 14 * Office of Building Energy Research Development .............. 14 * Energy Conversion and Utilization Technologies .............. 15 * Division of Energy Storage Technology - Electrochemical Storage Branch .............................. 16 * Office of Vehicle and Engine R&D ............................ 17 * Office of Industrial Programs ............................... 18 * Biomass Energy Technology Division - Biological Hydrogen Program .......................................... 18 * Division of Ocean Energy Technology - Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Program ................................. 19 * Office of Solar Energy/Photovoltaics Energy - Technology - Materials Research ........................... 20 * Wind Energy Technology Division - Large Wind Turbine Research and Technology Development ........................
    [Show full text]
  • US Neutron Facility Development in the Last Half-Century: a Cautionary Tale
    Phys. Perspect. Ó 2015 The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com DOI 10.1007/s00016-015-0158-8 Physics in Perspective US Neutron Facility Development in the Last Half-Century: A Cautionary Tale John J. Rush* Large multi-user facilities serve many thousands of researchers in fields from particle physics to fundamental biology. The great expense—up to billions of current-day dollars— and the complexity of such facilities required access to extensive engineering and research infrastructures, most often found at national laboratories and the largest research univer- sities. Although the development of such facilities has been largely successful and the research results unique and often spectacular, the processes for choosing, funding, and locating them were complex and not always productive. In this review, I describe the troubled efforts over the past fifty years to develop neutron research facilities in the United States. During this period, the US has moved from a preeminent position in neutron-based science to a lesser status with respect to Europe. Several major US centers of excellence have been shut down and replaced with more focused capabilities. I compare the US efforts in neutron facilities with parallel developments in Europe and Asia, discuss the reasons for this state of affairs, and make some suggestions to help prevent similar consequences in the future. Key words: neutron research; national laboratories; Department of Energy; National Institute of Standards and Technology; research reactors; spallation neutron sources; Institut Laue-Langevin; National Academy of Sciences. Introduction A major element in the great expansion both of US and international science since the Second World War has been the development of large multi-user facilities to serve many thousands of researchers around the world with applications in almost all fields, ranging from particle physics to fundamental biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Engineered Plants: a Potential Solution to Climate Change
    Genetically Engineered Plants: A Potential Solution to Climate Change Dr Charles DeLisi GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS: A POTENTIAL SOLUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is already having devastating effects felt across the globe. Without adequate measures to counteract the human drivers behind climate change, these negative consequences are guaranteed to increase in severity in the coming decades. Esteemed biomedical scientist, Dr Charles DeLisi of Boston University, urges that a multi-disciplinary approach to mitigating climate change is vital. Using predictive modelling, he has demonstrated the potential power of genetically engineering plants to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby mitigating climate change. ‘During the post-industrial period, the planetary temperature has increased rapidly,’ explains Dr Charles DeLisi of Boston University. ‘Ice sheet melting has accelerated, ocean levels have risen with concomitant increases in coastal flooding, and extreme weather events have increased in frequency.’ Emissions Reductions: Not the Whole Solution Thus far, measures to tackle climate change have focused on reducing our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Over the last three The Climate Emergency These changes are driven by increasing decades, over 100 nations across the levels of atmospheric ‘greenhouse globe have signed multiple agreements Climate change is, arguably, the most gases’, such as carbon dioxide. Released to voluntarily limit their emissions, significant global threat that society as a by-product of fossil fuel combustion but these measures alone are proving faces. Even small perturbations and other human activities, the level ineffective at slowing climatic in the planet’s climatic system of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere disruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Exascale Workshop Panel Report Meeting
    DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of a workshop sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees or officers, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of document authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Copyrights to portions of this report (including graphics) are reserved by original copyright holders or their assignees, and are used by the Government’s license and by permission. Requests to use any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits. On the cover: Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Cray XT5TM supercomputer. The computer, dubbed Jaguar, is the largest in the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The Jaguar’s computing power makes it among the most powerful open scientific systems in the world. Future reports in the Scientific Grand Challenges workshop series will feature different Office of Science computers on their covers. EXASCALE WORKSHOP PANEL MEETING REPORT Report from the Meeting Held January 19-20, 2010 Sponsored by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioinformatics
    Bioinformatics 1 ioinformatics is a hybrid science that links biological data with techniques for information storage, distribution, and analysis to support multiple areas of scientific Bresearch, including biomedicine. Bioinformatics is fed by high-throughput data- generating experiments, including genomic sequence determinations and measurements of gene expression patterns. Database projects curate and annotate the data and then distribute it via the World Wide Web. Mining these data leads to scientific discoveries and to the identification of new clinical applications. In the field of medicine in particular, a number of important applications for bioinformatics have been discovered. For example, it is used to identify correlations between gene sequences and diseases, to predict protein structures from amino acid sequences, to aid in the design of novel drugs, and to tailor treatments to individual patients based on their DNA sequences (pharmacogenomics). “[Helix]”, ill. under ‘’Bioinformatics’’, S [&] T: Dependable Solutions, www.stcorp.nl/step/bioinformatics 120431 Bibliotheca Alexandrina Updated by Ghada Sami 1 The goal of bioinformatics is the extension of experimental data by predictions. A fundamental goal of computational biology is the prediction of protein structure from an amino acid sequence. The spontaneous folding of proteins shows that this should be possible. Progress in the development of methods to predict protein folding is measured by biennial Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) programs, which involve blind tests of structure prediction methods. Bioinformatics is also used to predict interactions between proteins, given individual structures of the partners. This is known as the “docking problem.” Protein-protein complexes show good complementarity in surface shape and polarity and are stabilized largely by weak interactions, such as burial of hydrophobic surface, hydrogen bonds, and van der Waals forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Boston University Graduate Program in Bioinformatics Handbook 2012
    1 Boston University Graduate Program in Bioinformatics Handbook 2012-2013 http://www.bu.edu/bioinformatics Department of Biochemistry (School of Medicine) Department of Biology (College of Arts and Sciences) Biomedical Engineering Department (College of Engineering) Department of Biostatistics (School of Public Health) Department of Chemistry (College of Arts and Sciences) Department of Computational Biomedicine (School of Medicine) Department of Computer Science (College of Arts and Sciences) Electrical and Computer Engineering Department (College of Engineering) Genetics and Genomics Department (School of Medicine) Department of Mathematics and Statistics (College of Arts and Sciences) Department of Medicine (School of Medicine) Department of Microbiology (School of Medicine) Department of Mechanical Engineering (College of Engineering) Molecular and Cell Biology (Goldman School of Dental Health) Department of Neurology (School of Medicine) Periodontology & Oral Biology (Goldman School of Dental Health) Department of Physics (College of Arts and Sciences) Pulmonary Medicine (School of Medicine) Systems Engineering Division (College of Engineering) Center for Computational Science Center for Advanced Biotechnology Center for Advanced Genomic Technology Last Updated: 10/11/12 2 Bioinformatics Faculty and Staff Faculty Director Thomas Tullius Director of Bioinformatics Associate Directors Gary Benson* Associate Director of IGERT Scott Mohr Administrative Director, Director of Graduate Studies Department of Biochemistry (BUSM) Joseph Zaia Professor Associate Director, Center for Biomedical Mass Spectrometry Department of Biology (CAS) Cynthia Bradham Assistant Professor Geoffrey M. Cooper Professor, Associate Dean of the Faculty, Natural Sciences John Finnerty Associate Professor Ulla Hansen Professor Edward Loechler Professor Kimberly McCall Associate Professor # Daniel Segre* Associate Professor Dean Tolan Professor David Waxman Professor Department of Biomedical Engineering (ENG) Charles Cantor* Professor, Director of Center for Advanced Biotechnology James J.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Biology, Cell Biology & Biochemistry (MCBB) Graduate
    2016-2017 Molecular Biology, Cell Biology & Biochemistry (MCBB) Graduate Program Guide Table of Contents MCBB Graduate Program Administration.................................................................................................................................... 5 Participating Staff by Department.................................................................................................................................................. 6 Participating Faculty by Department............................................................................................................................................ 7 Facilities.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 MCBB Program Requirements.......................................................................................................................................................... 12 • Seminars................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 • Ph.D. Course Requirements............................................................................................................................................... 13 • M.A. Course Requirements...............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Human Genome Project
    Human Genome Project The Human Genome Project (HGP) was an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint.[1] It remains the world's largest collaborative biological project.[2] After the idea was picked up in 1984 by the US government when the planning started, the project formally launched in 1990 and was declared complete in 2003[3]. Funding came from the US government through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as numerous other groups from around the world. A parallel project was conducted outside government by the Celera Corporation, or Celera Genomics, which was formally launched in 1998. Most of the government-sponsored sequencing was performed in twenty universities and research centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Logo HGP; Vitruvian Man, Leonardo Germany, Spain and China.[4] da Vinci The Human Genome Project originally aimed to map the nucleotides contained in a human haploid reference genome (more than three billion). The "genome" of any given individual is unique; mapping the "human genome" involved sequencing a small number of individuals and then assembling these together to get a complete sequence for each chromosome. Therefore, the finished human genome is a mosaic, not representing any one individual. Contents Human Genome Project History State of completion Applications and proposed
    [Show full text]
  • The High Road to the Human Genome
    A ccomplishing S e q u e n c in g t h e H u m a n G e n o m e Andrew Bartlett Submitted to Cardiff University in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2008 i UMI Number: U584600 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U584600 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 D e c l a r a t io n This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed ..... y . .........(candidate) Date .............. STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. S igned /. JjTU..../...... .J.........(cand idate) Date........... STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed KJ. ) .... (candidate) Date............ .?. .4?.. ■ STATEMENT 3 I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Genome Program in 1986.”
    extracted from BER Exceptional Service Awards 1997 EXCEPTIONAL SERVICE AWARD for Exploring Genomes Charles DeLisi .................................................................. 20 Betty Mansfield ................................................................ 22 J. Craig Venter .................................................................. 24 Exploring Genomes Exploring OE initiated the world’s first development of biological resources; cost- genome program in 1986 after effective, automated technologies for mapping Dconcluding that the most useful approach for and sequencing; and tools for genome-data detecting inherited mutations—an important analysis. The project currently is on track to DOE health mission—is to obtain a complete deliver the sequence of 3 billion human base DNA reference sequence. In addition, the pairs by 2005. analytical power developed in pursuit of that Vital to the project’s continued suc- goal will lead to myriad applications in widely cess is DOE’s consistent and focused com- disparate fields including bioremediation, mitment to disseminating information about medicine, agriculture, and renewable energy. the progress, resources, and other results Many are surprised to learn that the generated in the Human Genome Project. longest-running federally funded genome These communication efforts also inform research effort is the 12-year-old DOE Human researchers across the broader scientific Genome Program. Its goal is to analyze the community, who are beginning to apply the genetic material—the genome—that
    [Show full text]
  • International Partnerships in Large Science Projects (July 1995)
    International Partnerships in Large Science Projects July 1995 OTA-BP-ETI-150 GPO stock #052-003-01419-0 Recommended Citation: U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, International Partnerships in Large Science Projects, OTA-BP-ETI-150 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1995). oreword ederal investment in research and development (R&D) has been crucial to many of the nation’s achievements in basic sciences. In recent years, however, budgetary pressures have made it difficult to sustain ongoing government R&D efforts and to initiate new ventures. These pressures and the growing international character of scientific research have focused greater attention on the potential con- tributions of international cooperation, particularly for large-scale, long- term science projects. The United States has several decades of experience with internation- al scientific collaborations. Numerous successful small-scale scientific cooperative efforts, largely through bilateral agreements, have been con- ducted. High-energy physics, fusion energy, and space are rich with ex- amples of this type of cooperation. However, U.S. experience in the joint construction and operation of large-scale experiments and facilities is far more limited. This background paper, requested by the Chairman and Ranking Mi- nority Member of the House Committee on Science, reviews U.S. expe- rience with collaborative projects in many different fields and their im- plications for future activities. It assesses the factors that facilitate international partnerships in big science projects and those that, con- versely, favor the pursuit of purely national projects. The background pa- per also reviews and identifies several important issues to consider in structuring future collaborations.
    [Show full text]